Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 129170 (ALL)

M/S RELAX HOSPITAL THRU. ITS PROPRIETOR MOHD. AFAQ AHMAD LKO. AND 2 OTHERS v. THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL LKO. THRU. ITS REGISTRAR AND 6 OTHERS

A227/1502/2025 · 2025-03-26

Pankaj Bhatia

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:17255 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1502 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Relax Hospital Thru. Its Proprietor Mohd. Afaq Ahmad Lko. And 2 Others Respondent :- The Debts Recovery Tribunal Lko. Thru. Its Registrar And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Rahul Tripathi,Ram Sajan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 10.03.2025 passed by DRT whereby the interim application of the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that the petitioners did not implead the assignee of the loan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the assignment deed whereby the loan granted to the petitioners was assigned to M/s J.M. Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Limited, opposite party no.3 herein, was never provided to the petitioners, in fact, the amounts paid by the petitioners were duly accepted by opposite party no.2 and in that context, opposite party no.3 was not impleaded. He further argues that in any case it was incumbent upon the DRT to have directed the petitioner to implead opposite party no.3 and instead of doing so, the stay application has been rejected. He further argues that in terms of an order passed under Section 14 of SARFAESI Act in favour of opposite party no.2, threats are being issued for taking possession as is evident from notice dated 28.02.2025. 4. Considering the nature of the order, I deem it inappropriate to relegate the petitioners to the remedy of appeal; the DRT ought to have directed the petitioners to implead any person to whom the DRT felt was a necessary and proper party. 5. Only on the said limited ground, the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 is quashed. Present petition is accordingly allowed. 6. Petitioners are directed to file an application impleading opposite party no.3 before the DRT within one week from today. 7. The DRT shall thereafter proceed to decide the said application afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of its being filed. 8. For a period of four weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. 9. In case, the impleadment application is not filed within one week from today, this order shall automatically come to an end. Order Date :- 26.3.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench